View Full Version : FRONTLINE: Bush's War
Lessons Learned? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrbushswar_20 08-03-24)
68 views of this thread and nobody watched this video?
Here is mine: Bush was not smarter than Dick and Donald. He was not a Washington politician, so he let them take control over State (Donald hated them) and CIA (Cheney and Donald hated them) and thus the smarter, more intelligent, cooler individuals never had a voice. That was the President's fault.
Not only that, but once we needed post-invasion answers, he fooked that up more than the reason for invasion.
Bush couldn't back off Rumsfeld or Cheney?? Why not???
dr. mabuse
03-28-2008, 14:26
Um, perhaps Frontline is not held in high regard by some folks on this forum.
I don't trust 'em. Too many family members in big media. :rolleyes:
Watched the first 3 chapters so far and seems very fair and accurate as to what I have read elsewhere. Will watch the rest when I get time. It is the responsibility of the American public to seek truth even when it flies against what they want to hear. To question the actions of the administration is not a betrayal. To not seek the truth is definitely a betrayal of the men and women we place in harms way. No segment of society deserves the truth more than those willing to sacrifice their lives for our ideals. I made the decision long ago I will support no candidate for office who employs Neocons.
Just finished a couple more chapters. Would be interested in hearing QP's take on the Afghanistan narrative. Something bothers me in it.
aricbcool
03-28-2008, 17:20
68 views of this thread and nobody watched this video?
Yeah, it's something like 4 hours long. I just finished part 1. Will join in when I finish the rest. So far it's definitely brought some questions to mind...
..... I made the decision long ago I will support no candidate for office who employs Neocons.
Theres that word again. Some throw it around because it sounds cool and others use it to insulte people. Some just throw it around because others do.
Could you define what a Neocon is please.
Theres that word again. Some throw it around because it sounds cool and others use it to insulte people. Some just throw it around because others do.
Could you define what a Neocon is please.
Neocons are basically Eastern intellectuals with practically zero military experience, mostly ex democrats , who believe US foreign policy since WWII has been wrong. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, etc all wrong. One of their basic tenets is since we are the only super power we should act unilaterally anywhere in the world to promote what they deem to be in our best interests. I have long said they should hang out in redneck bars more to learn the realities of the world. I think Richard Armitage said it more intellectually when he stated " the trouble with these guys is they have never even been in a bar fight." They stand ready to send men such as yourself to die for their beliefs. Iraq was on their agenda long before 9/11. They believe that " the path to peace in Palestine lies through through Baghdad."
Their think tank is the American Enterprise Institute
.... Iraq was on their agenda long before 9/11....
One of the big problems I had with President Clinton was he didn't deal with Iraq. He just kicked the can down the street.
Pete
Who watched one nights worth of cruise missle attacks on Bagdad from the S-2 shop on Doha. Of course that was only to change the stateside news cycle. I hate CNN International. Viewed OJ's slo-mo white bronco chase down the Highway live on CNN-I also.
Of course there are a lot of politicians from both sides kicking political cans down the street right now. Stateside and around the world.
An issue in the Frontline episode that chaps my hide is the infighting they dsicussed between Rumsfeld and the CIA. I had no idea what kind of person Rumsfeld is, I guess I could say that the report changed my opinion of him.
aricbcool
04-01-2008, 00:30
Finished it. Here's my problem with it (and this may be the problem with the whole situation rather than just this show)... Iraq is a political weapon. There are so many people pointing so many fingers it's difficult to know who to believe right now, especially in an election year.
For instance, Frontline makes the CIA out to look like the most ethical, squared away, effective intelligence organization we could have had. However, in reading "See No Evil" by Robert Baer, the veteran agent paints the Agency in a less flattering light.
In Jawbreaker, by Gary Bernsten, there's much frustration to be had for the CIA, yet I don't recall compalints about US Special Forces like those brought up in Frontline.
But where the show loses credibility is in the unabashed liberal bias it took towards nearly everything. From "torture policy" to all the "neocon" labels being thrown around, the show reeked of "smear campaign". Even the title "Bush's War", is inflammatory rhetoric IMO. Unfortunately, this diminishes the credibility of such a piece to the point that if there is truth to this show, I won't buy into it fully because of the blatant partisanship.
And what about the big players. We got the scoop from the aides and supporting players, but what about Powell and Rumsfeld, both key players who aren't in service any longer... yet their thoughts and private emotions are being speculated by former subordinates and talking heads who think they know the whole story.
So, There's my opinion. It was an interesting show. Part 2 was much better and covered Iraq in a broader timeline which actually improved my perspective on it. Yet, I'm still asking myself what part of it I can believe and what part to brush off as political infighting...
Regards,
Aric
Aric,
I watched it also…FWIW, I believe yours is a good synopsis….